The moral law

[anynameyouwish]

so you don’t have personal relationships that are based on each party being virtuous?

I'm not sure I have any such relationships. Mine are based on self interest: my family brings me feelings of pride and joy, my friends do things with me that I enjoy, my employer pays me to do stuff.

"Modern China did not treat their own people with virtue and is successful."

I have often maintained that the best way for leaders to maintain firm control of the country and people is NOT to drive them into the ground with poverty and fear...no...that way lies unrest and resistance!

best to make them comfortable.....

give them enough to shut them up.....

the comfy chair, a nice take out pizza and a big screen tv is so much more effective than the torture chamber.

 

[Gdjjr]

You were literally quoting a belief that comes from natural law.

Learn to read. I queried your use of a word- and cited natural law, which you didn't.

 

[Gdjjr]

And that’s the talk of a subversive.

And that's the reaction of an obtuse person.

 

[Mindful]

I know there was one frowning down at me as I was swimming in the pool under the mountain, last year in The Levant.

So if you only believe there is one, why bring up man’s perception of God as proof there are many?

I didn't. You said I did.

You didn’t say you didn’t.

Didn't l?

Correct. You played your usual games. Be that as it may, you were making an argument you yourself do not believe.

What games might they be? Ding games?

 

[Mindful]

Once you started demanding I number crunch the Gods, Ding, you killed it.

 

[ding]

So if you only believe there is one, why bring up man’s perception of God as proof there are many?

I didn't. You said I did.

You didn’t say you didn’t.

Didn't l?

Correct. You played your usual games. Be that as it may, you were making an argument you yourself do not believe.

What games might they be? Ding games?

Nope. I’m not playing any games. That’s your MO.

 

[ding]

Once you started demanding I number crunch the Gods, Ding, you killed it.

Dear, you were the one who brought up the multiple gods argument when you yourself don’t believe in multiple gods. Thus proving the games you play.

 

[ding]

And that’s the talk of a subversive.

And that's the reaction of an obtuse person.

No. That’s reality. He professes to be a Gnostic Christian while arguing against God.

 

[ding]

You were literally quoting a belief that comes from natural law.

Learn to read. I queried your use of a word- and cited natural law, which you didn't.

I read just fine. Your original post was about inalienable rights. That belief is founded upon a belief in natural law. Natural law are laws from Nature’s God.

 

[ding]

so you don’t have personal relationships that are based on each party being virtuous?

I'm not sure I have any such relationships. Mine are based on self interest: my family brings me feelings of pride and joy, my friends do things with me that I enjoy, my employer pays me to do stuff.

So you seek out people who are devoid of virtue? You know, people who behave dishonesty, cruelly, etc.

I've never met anyone completely devoid of virtue or anyone who is 100% dishonest or cruel. I only know human beings, who are you talking about?

Right but that’s not the question. The question is which one leads to peace and harmony and which one leads to chaos and disorder.

 

[ding]

I believe you and I have a different understanding of what successful means. But putting that aside, do you believe that comparing how one nation treats other nations is the correct way of looking at things?

let’s use the USSR as an example. They did not treat their own people with virtue. Do you define them as being successful?

Comparing how one nation treats other nations is a very problematic of looking at things. Is the US virtuous? Did the US topple foreign governments and create real trouble (e.g., Iran)?

The USSR did not treat their own people with virtue and was not successful. Modern China did not treat their own people with virtue and is successful.

Actually it’s not. It’s no different than personal relationships.

people prefer to associate with people of good will. It’s no different for nations.

Sorry but that is not how the world works. The US was no fan of the USSR but we provided them plenty of aid when they were fighting Nazis. We don't look for virtue in nations, only shared self-interest.

And doesn’t prove anything.

 

[Mindful]

Once you started demanding I number crunch the Gods, Ding, you killed it.

Dear, you were the one who brought up the multiple gods argument when you yourself don’t believe in multiple gods. Thus proving the games you play.

Dearest. What multiple Gods argument did I bring up?

And how do you know I don't believe in them? Although acknowledge would be a more appropriate verb. Even God himself went that far.

 

[Gdjjr]

That belief is founded upon a belief in natural law. Natural law are laws from Nature’s God.

That isn't what you said- like I said learn to read, especially what you type.

 

[Mindful]

I was wondering if a moral law applied to black widow spiders and preying mantis.

The appalling and callous behaviour they indulge in.

 

[Gdjjr]

The question is which one leads to peace and harmony and which one leads to chaos and disorder.

Respect the rights of others, which I tried, unsuccessfully, to point out to you but your intentional obtuseness refused to accept it. Remember?

 

[alang1216]

so you don’t have personal relationships that are based on each party being virtuous?

I'm not sure I have any such relationships. Mine are based on self interest: my family brings me feelings of pride and joy, my friends do things with me that I enjoy, my employer pays me to do stuff.

"Modern China did not treat their own people with virtue and is successful."

I have often maintained that the best way for leaders to maintain firm control of the country and people is NOT to drive them into the ground with poverty and fear...no...that way lies unrest and resistance!

best to make them comfortable.....

give them enough to shut them up.....

the comfy chair, a nice take out pizza and a big screen tv is so much more effective than the torture chamber.

Doesn't sound like human nature to me. Give them an inch and they'll want a mile. Terror kept the USSR together for decades. Once the shackles were removed, it was doomed.

 

[alang1216]

so you don’t have personal relationships that are based on each party being virtuous?

I'm not sure I have any such relationships. Mine are based on self interest: my family brings me feelings of pride and joy, my friends do things with me that I enjoy, my employer pays me to do stuff.

So you seek out people who are devoid of virtue? You know, people who behave dishonesty, cruelly, etc.

I've never met anyone completely devoid of virtue or anyone who is 100% dishonest or cruel. I only know human beings, who are you talking about?

Right but that’s not the question. The question is which one leads to peace and harmony and which one leads to chaos and disorder.

You keep changing the goal posts. Are you talking about nations or individuals? If nations, please provide some examples of what you're trying to say.

 

[alang1216]

I believe you and I have a different understanding of what successful means. But putting that aside, do you believe that comparing how one nation treats other nations is the correct way of looking at things?

let’s use the USSR as an example. They did not treat their own people with virtue. Do you define them as being successful?

Comparing how one nation treats other nations is a very problematic of looking at things. Is the US virtuous? Did the US topple foreign governments and create real trouble (e.g., Iran)?

The USSR did not treat their own people with virtue and was not successful. Modern China did not treat their own people with virtue and is successful.

Actually it’s not. It’s no different than personal relationships.

people prefer to associate with people of good will. It’s no different for nations.

Sorry but that is not how the world works. The US was no fan of the USSR but we provided them plenty of aid when they were fighting Nazis. We don't look for virtue in nations, only shared self-interest.

And doesn’t prove anything.

Got an example that does prove something?

 

[GreatestIam]

Morals are the thinking part and ethics are the action part of whatever tenet under discussion.

I.e, laws. But even with ethical choices, you have to measure morality of the options.

They can be separated in practice, as poor moral measures may arise from ignorance. So, sometimes targeting a better ethical choice will point us toward better moral assessment of the first moral premises involved . Such as, in my example of a promise to give Evey person on Earth a dollar, if you murder your neighbor's child. If one only adheres to the ethical tenet that the good of many outweighs the good of one, without any analysis or deference to a different, possibly superior ethical tenet, what I would consider an immoral and unethical outcome results.

So, you analyze the two moral concepts involved -- the good of your neighbor's child, and the good of the many -- due to the understanding that the outcome of this murder and ethical choice seems unethical and immoral.

I agree that murder for money is immoral.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

One or many, they all count or none count.

So if you were participating in the killing train moral experiment that moralists run, you would let the train kill the many instead of the few. Right?

Regards
DL